Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times,
A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns in the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional.
In the case of Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. District Court Judge James Wesley Hendrix found that the requirements exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority once the NFA’s taxes on making or transferring those arms were eliminated. The taxes were reduced to zero last year.
The court found that the NFA, as enacted in 1934, passed constitutional muster as an act of Congress’s taxing power because the regulatory requirements—including registration, applications, ATF approval, fingerprinting, and related criminal penalties—aided the collection of NFA taxes.
This is in line with the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case, Sonzinsky v. United States, in which the high court ruled the NFA is a legal exercise of Congress’s taxing authority. In that decision, the court found that the government could gather information on the owners of certain firearms and their accessories that were subject to the NFA’s $200 excise as part of the tax collection process.
Wednesday’s ruling in response to two consolidated cases—Jensen v. ATF, with Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF—in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, held that once Congress eliminated the taxes for suppressors, the constitutional foundation for registration was eliminated as well.
“In sum, the Court concludes that the challenged NFA provisions exceed Congress’s Article I enumerated powers and are therefore unconstitutional,” Hendrix’s ruling states.
On July 4, 2025, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” reduced the NFA’s excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and a category labeled “any other weapon” from $200 to $0. However, the items were still required to be registered under the NFA.
Machine guns and destructive devices are still subject to the $200 tax and its requirements. Under Hendrix’s ruling, the category “any other weapons” is still subject to the requirements even though it is not taxed.
The court has issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, but leaves them in place for the “any other weapons” category.
Hendrix stayed his decision for seven days to allow the government to appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The government argued that the provisions were justified under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.
In its court filings, the government pointed out that NFA-regulated businesses are subject to other federal taxes. Therefore, the registration requirements are part of the overall taxing process. The defendants said this has been recognized in prior Supreme Court cases.
“It’s long been settled that the NFA’s requirements aid in the assessment, collection, and enforcement of the Act’s taxes and are thus justified under Congress’s taxing power. Shortly after the NFA’s enactment, in United States v. Sonzinsky, the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the NFA’s special occupational tax on firearm dealers, holding that Congress had the power to impose the tax even if it was intended to “restrict or suppress the thing taxed,” the government’s response reads.
Second Amendment advocates hailed Wednesday’s decision.
“We are delighted with the ruling from Judge Hendrix,” Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb wrote in a statement. “With the tax no longer in existence, there was no logical reason for the ATF’s registration requirement to continue. With this victory setting a precedent, we anticipate success in the other cases involving our sister organization, Second Amendment Foundation.”
National Rifle Association leaders, one of the plaintiffs in Jensen v. ATF, also praised the ruling, and vowed to continue pushing for the end of the NFA.
“Our successful effort to eliminate the $200 NFA tax created the opening for our world-class attorneys to secure this historic federal court ruling that the NFA is unconstitutional. The fight to fully repeal this archaic gun-control measure is not over, but today’s decision is a major step in the right direction,” John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislation Action, stated in an email to The Epoch Times.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act originally repealed the NFA’s excise tax. That language was removed, and the tax was instead reduced to zero, after Congressional Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough determined a repeal did not comport with the tax purposes of the bill.
Gun Owners of America has contended that the ATF and other federal agencies have used the information gathered to build a de facto gun registry. The group has declared that part of its mission is to have the government destroy information it has that could be used to build a registry.
The ATF has strongly denied that such a registry exists.
Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 21:45America’s population is getting older, but some states are aging much faster than others.
Using U.S. Census Bureau data compiled by USAFacts, this ranking, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, shows how much each state’s population aged 65 and older grew between 2014 and 2024.
Growth in 65-and-Older Populations (2014-2024)The table below ranks every state by the percentage growth in its population aged 65 and older between 2014 and 2024.
State Change in 65+ Population (2014–2024) Total Growth Alaska 56% 39,425 Idaho 51% 120,188 Delaware 48% 74,383 Utah 48% 140,632 Wyoming 46% 36,760 New Hampshire 45% 93,596 Colorado 44% 300,169 Nevada 44% 175,038 Montana 42% 71,509 South Carolina 42% 319,192 Georgia 41% 513,532 Texas 41% 1,265,419 Vermont 39% 41,969 Arizona 39% 420,852 Washington 38% 382,832 Maine 36% 87,850 Hawaii 36% 82,756 South Dakota 36% 46,219 North Carolina 36% 518,927 Minnesota 35% 275,897 Virginia 35% 401,357 New Mexico 35% 110,140 Florida 34% 1,294,733 Oregon 34% 214,979 Wisconsin 34% 295,892 North Dakota 34% 35,289 Maryland 33% 275,008 Rhode Island 32% 53,451 Massachusetts 31% 317,385 California 30% 1,519,339 Michigan 30% 461,738 New Jersey 30% 392,753 Louisiana 30% 187,508 New York 29% 854,478 Indiana 29% 275,051 Tennessee 29% 285,027 Connecticut 29% 159,449 Nebraska 28% 77,116 Alabama 28% 208,362 Kansas 28% 115,595 Illinois 27% 484,181 Kentucky 26% 172,658 Ohio 26% 474,302 Missouri 25% 235,408 Pennsylvania 25% 530,510 Iowa 25% 121,677 Mississippi 24% 103,194 Oklahoma 23% 129,764 District of Columbia 22% 16,219 Arkansas 21% 96,987 West Virginia 17% 57,493 🇺🇸 U.S. total 34% 14,964,188Every state added residents aged 65 and older over the decade, but the increase ranged from 17% in West Virginia to 56% in Alaska. Nationwide, the senior population grew 34%.
Many of the fastest-growing senior populations were in the West and Sun Belt, including Idaho (+51%), Utah (+48%), and Texas (+41%). Several of these states began the period with relatively young populations and had experienced rapid population growth through domestic migration. As those residents aged, the number of people 65 and older rose quickly.
Why Alaska LeadsAlaska recorded the nation’s fastest-growing senior population despite not being a traditional retirement destination.
Much of the increase reflects longtime residents aging in place. Many people who moved to Alaska during the oil boom of the 1970s and 1980s are now entering retirement, helping drive the rapid increase in residents aged 65 and older.
Why Growth Was Slower ElsewhereWest Virginia, Arkansas, and the District of Columbia recorded the slowest growth in their senior populations.
A slower growth rate does not necessarily indicate a younger population. States such as West Virginia already had among the nation’s oldest populations in 2014, leaving less room for large percentage gains over the following decade.
To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the best countries to retire in.
Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 21:20By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice.com
Mexico has ruled out fracking in a key shale basin, drawing a line through a resource-rich area even as the country looks for ways to cut its dependence on U.S. natural gas.
President Claudia Sheinbaum said hydraulic fracturing will not be allowed in the Tampico-Misantla basin beneath Veracruz and Tamaulipas. The government cited the basin’s dense population, indigenous communities and freshwater reserves.
Sheinbaum ordered a panel to examine whether unconventional gas could help reduce imports from the United States. Mexico buys more than 6.5 billion cubic feet per day of pipeline gas from its northern neighbor, covering roughly 75% of domestic demand.
The commission recommended boosting conventional gas production first. Even with the proposed measures, Mexico’s reliance on U.S. supply would fall only to about 50%, according to Sheinbaum.
Mexico would need unconventional gas to push that figure lower. The panel said future fracking should be limited to basins containing salt water rather than freshwater, leaving northern shale formations in play.
Sheinbaum campaigned as a critic of fracking and its environmental costs. Energy math has since become less cooperative. Natural gas fuels much of Mexico’s power sector and industry, while domestic production has failed to keep pace.
Seven combined-cycle power plants are coming online, with five more planned, adding to the demand for gas. Pemex expects to lift domestic production to just over 4 billion cubic feet per day by 2030, still nowhere near enough to eliminate imports.
The state oil company is also under pressure to reverse falling output while carrying a mountain of debt. Mexico holds an estimated 141.5 trillion cubic feet of unconventional gas resources, mostly in northern basins.
Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 20:55